Hey Jed!

[Okla-homey]

Sonics news in the World this a.m.

It appears Tulsa may be afforded an opportunity to suckle at the NBA teat.;)


Benefits may come Tulsa's way

Owner Clay Bennett has said the NBA team “will play in Tulsa,” while Oklahoma City mayor Mick Cornett has estimated that “10 to 20 percent” of game tickets could be purchased by Tulsans. BRYAN TERRY/The Associated Press/The Oklahoman


By GUERIN EMIG and P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writers
7/4/2008

So the NBA, in the form of the former Seattle SuperSonics franchise, is coming to Oklahoma City for the 2008-09 season. What does that mean for Tulsa?

Possibilities. Lots of them.

Just not many certainties.

"We want to make this Oklahoma's team," team owner Clay Bennett said in announcing the relocation Wednesday night. "This is a team that's going to play in Tulsa." [hmmm. Might this intent be made manifest in the team name?;) ]

As to specifics, BOK Center general manager John Bolton said Thursday there has been no discussion with Bennett, but he understands that there is a strong interest to have Tulsa host an exhibition game annually or every two years.

"It would be great to have it," he said. "It would add to the BOK Center (another) sports programming event."

Tulsa's new downtown arena has already booked the Houston Rockets and Orlando Magic for a preseason game Oct. 13.

Whether or not the Oklahoma City NBA team comes to town will depend on discussions sure to be forthcoming; Bolton said the day after the relocation announcement wasn't a realistic time to determine firm plans.

Expect Tulsa civic leaders to become involved when that time comes.

"Even though the team will be based in Oklahoma City, I will continue to talk with Clay about how we might work together to showcase the team in Tulsa as well," mayor Kathy Taylor said in a statement Thursday.

If Tulsans are unsure when they'll see Bennett's team, they're almost certain to hear his sales pitch, in the form of season ticket brochures or corporate sponsorship negotiations.

"I anticipate Clay Bennett being very aggressive to make sure his team succeeds," said Tulsa 66ers president Jim Brylewski, whose NBA Developmental League team aligned with the Sonics last month. "I'm sure he will promote it regionally."

That's the expectation of NBA commissioner David Stern, who saw the potential for a statewide market when Oklahoma City hosted the New Orleans Hornets franchise from 2005-07 in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath.

That potential was validated last March when Taylor helped present the team's potential new home to the NBA's relocation committee.

And when the NBA Board of Governors voted to approve the Sonics' relocation last April, Stern called Bennett's team a "state franchise."

Since then, Oklahoma City mayor Mick Cornett has estimated that "10 to 20 percent" of game tickets could be purchased by Tulsans.

Perhaps that will happen. For now, however, the only place in Tulsa you're sure to hear the pop of champagne corks is at the 66ers' office. After all, it's a little easier to sell an affiliation between Tulsa and Oklahoma City than Tulsa and Seattle.

"For us it's a coup," Brylewski said. "I can't imagine a more positive piece of news."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Guerin Emig 581-8355 [email protected]

[BigRedJed]

They'd be crazy not to play regular exhibition games there. They should do it EVERY year, if you ask me. It's a great fit. I know if the roles were reversed, I'd be headed up there for games on a regular basis.

[BigRedJed]

Kathy Taylor was also here for the pitch to the NBA at the Skirvin. It was a great show of support. Too bad so many people seem so intent on making the OKC/Tulsa relationship an OKC VS. Tulsa relationship. For this state to achieve greatness, BOTH cities have to be thriving. I don't hear Dallas bitching about Austin having a good economy.

[King Crimson]

i think they should play a few reg season games in Tulsa as well.

though, i think the team should bear the name "OKC".

[BigRedJed]

Yeah, considering I'll be a season ticket holder, I'm gonna say "not so much." Kindof like I wouldn't care for OU moving a couple of home football games to Dallas for the OU fans living in Texas.

[King Crimson]

Yeah, considering I'll be a season ticket holder, I'm gonna say "not so much." Kindof like I wouldn't care for OU moving a couple of home football games to Dallas for the OU fans living in Texas.

big difference. OU plays 5-6 home games in football (in addition to no matter how many OU grads and fans live and work in Dallas....playing in Texas is never a "home game" for Oklahoma). the NBA plays 8 million games a season.

[Okla-homey]

big difference. OU plays 5-6 home games in football (in addition to no matter how many OU grads and fans live and work in Dallas....playing in Texas is never a "home game" for Oklahoma). the NBA plays 8 million games a season.

I agree. I don't think there would be any real loss of value to season tix holders for the team to play one game a month up here during the season.

[BigRedJed]

There would be if you are a fan who attends every game. Guys, sorry. It's a silly idea and an affront to local fans. No other team in the league does it.

This could easily turn into one of those silly OKC vs. Tulsa arguments, but it's not. If OKC needs nights in another city to bolster sales, the team shouldn't be here. I believe we will not. Putting nights in another city suggests that we do, before the first game in OKC is even tipped off.

If OKC does NOT need nights in another city to bolster sales, the fans of the team based there should have the same number of opportunities to see local games as the fans of any other NBA city.

[BigRedJed]

As for the OU home game question, OK, how about this then: every five years OU's home schedule is reduced to five games and they play a game in Houston. Lots of OU alums and donors in Houston. They deserve to see an OU home game without traveling, right? How does that strike everybody?

[Harry Beanbag]

As for the OU home game question, OK, how about this then: every five years OU's home schedule is reduced to five games and they play a game in Houston. Lots of OU alums and donors in Houston. They deserve to see an OU home game without traveling, right? How does that strike everybody?

OU does play a home game in Dallas every other season.

[King Crimson]

There would be if you are a fan who attends every game. Guys, sorry. It's a silly idea and an affront to local fans. No other team in the league does it.

This could easily turn into one of those silly OKC vs. Tulsa arguments, but it's not. If OKC needs nights in another city to bolster sales, the team shouldn't be here. I believe we will not. Putting nights in another city suggests that we do, before the first game in OKC is even tipped off.

If OKC does NOT need nights in another city to bolster sales, the fans of the team based there should have the same number of opportunities to see local games as the fans of any other NBA city.

it's not about bolstering sales, it's about selling the product. though, i think in 4 years if the Barons/Sonics/Red Dirt Dickwheel Tornado Eating BBQ Rib Rattlesnakes are (still) winning about 24 games a year....then sales may be an issue.

it's not a silly idea. my thought was maybe 2-4 games a year in Tulsa.



As for the OU home game question, OK, how about this then: every five years OU's home schedule is reduced to five games and they play a game in Houston. Lots of OU alums and donors in Houston. They deserve to see an OU home game without traveling, right? How does that strike everybody?

an even worse comparison than the home game in Dallas one: that is in no way analogical. i don't where you are pulling this "deserve to see without traveling" conclusion?

[Jerk]

nm that was gay

[BigRedJed]

OU does play a home game in Dallas every other season.
Yeah, I knew someone would bring that up. Not an apples-to-apples comparison. If the Oklahoma City ________ers develop a heated rivalry with the Spurs, and decide to have a rivalry game in Dallas or Wichita Falls where they alternate as home team, THAT is a fair comparison to OU-Texas.

Relocating to another locale regular season games that would otherwise be enjoyed by home fans, just to build fan base, is simply not fair to the home fans. Somehow, I believe the citizens of another city, were Oklahoma city fans clamoring for some of their regular season games to be located here, would react much the same.

It was great that the Hornets played a pre-season game here last year, but I certainly didn't think NOLA should give up regular season games in an effort to retain loyal OKC fans, and OKC and the Hornets have a unique history. And frankly, they could have a shot in the arm from another city early in the season far more than I expect or hope for OKC to need it when a team gets here.

I certainly didn't hope for or expect the Mavs to play a couple of regular season games in OKC, despite the fact that it might have "made some sense" from a fan development perspective.

It's nice to see exhibition baseball and hockey games come through OKC from time to time, and I attend most of them enthusiastically, but I'd never dream of expecting their home fans give up a regular season game, just to develop the OKC fanbase for the Cardinals, for instance (lots of Cards fans here). So I'm not sure why anybody expects that OKC should give up a home game for its single major league franchise. Again, it is an affront to the local fans to even suggest it.

[StoopTroup]

I'll go as long as they make the name OKC Tulsans. ;)

[Frozen Sooner]

I don't think it's a particular slap in the face to season-ticket holders if it's understood that their ticket is only good for 40 games instead of 41 and the price reflects that.

The Packers traditionally play one game a year in Milwaukee, don't they?

[Frozen Sooner]

Just checked. Until 1994, the Packers played three regular season game per year in Milwaukee.

[BigRedJed]

Oops. Back to the football comparison again. Alright, let's move an OU game to Houston.

[StoopTroup]

Oops. Back to the football comparison again. Alright, let's move an OU game to Houston.

College Station every other year makes your request....

DENIED!

:D

:pop:

[Frozen Sooner]

Oops. Back to the football comparison again. Alright, let's move an OU game to Houston.

No skin off of my back. Go ahead.

[BigRedJed]

Just checked. Until 1994, the Packers played three regular season game per year in Milwaukee.
Because Green Bay is roughly the size of Norman. Without the close-by city. There are LITERALLY more Green Bay fans in Milwaukee than there are in Green Bay. If OKC were a city of 100,000 with a metro population of 200,000 we would not and SHOULD not be getting a sniff of the NBA.

The Packers are a one-of-a-kind situation in pro-sports.

[BigRedJed]

No skin off of my back. Go ahead.
Heh.

[BigRedJed]

I don't think it's a particular slap in the face to season-ticket holders if it's understood that their ticket is only good for 40 games instead of 41 and the price reflects that...
So why not play 10 games in other cities? Or 20? Or heck, make it like the Harlem Globetrotters and play ALL of your games in other cities?

BECAUSE YOU PLAY YOUR REGULAR SEASON HOME GAMES IN YOUR HOME CITY, IN FRONT OF YOUR HOME FANS, WHO SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO SEE EVERY HOME GAME, FROM THEIR OWN SEATS, IF THEY CHOOSE TO!! DUH!!

:D

[King Crimson]

all the games should be played in Jed's driveway and if drinking from the garden hose isn't enough for Kevin Durant, **** him.

Jed's a season ticket holder.

[StoopTroup]

I actually agree with Jed.

Let OKC support the team.

If it's going to be successful they will need to be the backbone.

It would be cool if they would get a High-Speed Mass Transit Train system that got folks back and forth from say Kansas City to Tulsa to OKC to Norman to Lawton to Ft. Worth or Dallas...

Dare to dream.

With fuel becoming more of an issue maybe it will someday be possible.

[BigRedJed]

all the games should be played in Jed's driveway and if drinking from the garden hose isn't enough for Kevin Durant, **** him.

Jed's a season ticket holder.
YES!!! That would so kick ***.

[Mixer!]

With gas prices being what they are in 2008 vs. 2005, OKC fans will have to be the team's main supporters. What was once priced as a big night out has rapidly become a short vacation for many OOT fans.

[birddog]

I actually agree with Jed.

Let OKC support the team.

If it's going to be successful they will need to be the backbone.

It would be cool if they would get a High-Speed Mass Transit Train system that got folks back and forth from say Kansas City to Tulsa to OKC to Norman to Lawton to Ft. Worth or Dallas...

Dare to dream.

With fuel becoming more of an issue maybe it will someday be possible.

most sensible idea i've ever heard.

[CORNholio]

This reminds me more of the argument in Arkansas regarding the razorpigs playing a couple games a year in Little Rock.
(people in Little Rock)--"It's the states university not the University of Fayetteville, we should get games here too."
(people in NWA)-- "The university is here so we should play ALL the games here"

[Okla-homey]

Rather off-topic, but somehat relevant strange but true story. About a 125 years ago, the good folks up in Kansas were deciding where to situate the state pen and the university. The folks in Leavenworth/Lansing lobbied hard for the state pen because it would bring in jobs local folks could fill. You know, guards and such. And the farmers would have a guarenteed volume customer for local beef, pork, grains and vegetables. They figured the university would'nt bring in too many jobs local Joe Six-Pack's could fill because perfessers had to be educated and what not.

Leavenworth/Lansing actually had enough support in the KS legislature to get the university over Lawrence, but they passed on the school in favor of the pen.

if you look up myopia in the dictionary, there should be a photo of the Leavenworth/Lansing city fathers of that era.;)

[BigRedJed]

Hmm... ...I'm not sure I follow the "relevance." Or maybe I do. Care to expound, Homey?

[Okla-homey]

Hmm... ...I'm not sure I follow the "relevance." Or maybe I do. Care to expound, Homey?

That city planners need to look out into the future and factor in the out-year potential, not just the quick "right now" paybacks. In my example above, the University of Kansas has been a far greater economic engine for Lawrence than the state pen has been for the Leavenworth/Lansing area -- although the pen began began netting a return far earlier.

That's also why I was so disappointed in my fellow Tulsans who voted against Arkansas River development. I honestly believe investment in that sort of thing ultimately reaps big dividends for the entire community in terms of overall economic growth.

My hat is off to my fellow Okies in OKC who exhibited prudent judgment in making a sizable investment in their city's future amidst what I'm sure were nattering nabobs of negativity who urged against "wasting public dollars" while other "right now" needs were left underfunded.

In short, you gotta spend money to make money. OKC apparently "gets it."
I'm hoping Tulsa will get onboard that train too, as evidenced by some recent decisions.

At the same time, there are still discouraging signs up here. To wit my buddy on the city council is leading a move to not only fix our crappy streets, but also to widen many, especially those in south Tulsa where the city is enjoying spectacular growth.

Problem is, he's opposed by a cartel on the Council who don't want to fix and widen. They just want to fix existing streets. Now to be sure, its cheaper over the short haul to just fix what's broke. But, by widening in areas that need it, you accomplish two things. 1) more lanes means less pounding on each lane, thus the whole street lasts longer. 2) Widening makes it easier for people to get around and SPEND MONEY. Seems like a no-brainer to me. But hey, I'm not on city council so I must be missing something. Or not.

[Frozen Sooner]

That city planners need to look out into the future and factor in the out-year potential, not just the quick "right now" paybacks. In my example above, the University of Kansas has been a far greater economic engine for Lawrence than the state pen has been for the Leavenworth/Lansing area -- although the pen began began netting a return far earlier.

That's also why I was so disappointed in my fellow Tulsans who voted against Arkansas River development. I honestly believe investment in that sort of thing ultimately reaps big dividends for the entire community in terms of overall economic growth.

My hat is off to my fellow Okies in OKC who exhibited prudent judgment in making a sizable investment in their city's future amidst what I'm sure were nattering nabobs of negativity who urged against "wasting public dollars" while other "right now" needs were left underfunded.

In short, you gotta spend money to make money. OKC apparently "gets it."
I'm hoping Tulsa will get onboard that train too, as evidenced by some recent decisions.

At the same time, there are still discouraging signs up here. To wit my buddy on the city council is leading a move to not only fix our crappy streets, but also to widen many, especially those in south Tulsa where the city is enjoying spectacular growth.

Problem is, he's opposed by a cartel on the Council who don't want to fix and widen. They just want to fix existing streets. Now to be sure, its cheaper over the short haul to just fix what's broke. But, by widening in areas that need it, you accomplish two things. 1) more lanes means less pounding on each lane, thus the whole street lasts longer. 2) Widening makes it easier for people to get around and SPEND MONEY. Seems like a no-brainer to me. But hey, I'm not on city council so I must be missing something. Or not.


Puts me in mind of some folks up here.

Arctic Boulevard was widened over the course of two years recently. Now, the project took a long time and the businesses on Arctic took a hit, because it was really hard to get to them for a fairly long period of time. While I can't say that they don't have a gripe, Arctic is much easier to get up and down now and those businesses are starting to see a boom.

Now the city wants to do the same for Spenard-which is a road that's existed in its current configuration for a good 30+ years. Needless to say, all the business owners on Spenard are up in arms.

[Harry Beanbag]

Yeah, I knew someone would bring that up. Not an apples-to-apples comparison. If the Oklahoma City ________ers develop a heated rivalry with the Spurs, and decide to have a rivalry game in Dallas or Wichita Falls where they alternate as home team, THAT is a fair comparison to OU-Texas.

Relocating to another locale regular season games that would otherwise be enjoyed by home fans, just to build fan base, is simply not fair to the home fans. Somehow, I believe the citizens of another city, were Oklahoma city fans clamoring for some of their regular season games to be located here, would react much the same.

It was great that the Hornets played a pre-season game here last year, but I certainly didn't think NOLA should give up regular season games in an effort to retain loyal OKC fans, and OKC and the Hornets have a unique history. And frankly, they could have a shot in the arm from another city early in the season far more than I expect or hope for OKC to need it when a team gets here.

I certainly didn't hope for or expect the Mavs to play a couple of regular season games in OKC, despite the fact that it might have "made some sense" from a fan development perspective.

It's nice to see exhibition baseball and hockey games come through OKC from time to time, and I attend most of them enthusiastically, but I'd never dream of expecting their home fans give up a regular season game, just to develop the OKC fanbase for the Cardinals, for instance (lots of Cards fans here). So I'm not sure why anybody expects that OKC should give up a home game for its single major league franchise. Again, it is an affront to the local fans to even suggest it.


Whew. I finally found the time to read this, most of it anyway. No kidding it isn't an apples to apples comparison, it would be closer to your orange analogy of OU playing a game in Houston. The reasons don't matter, Norman is still losing a home game every other year, and nobody seems particularly upset about it.

I realize that nobody's opinion but your's matters here so I just have one question for you. If they decide to play a couple of home games in Tulsa a season, will that cause you to not buy season tickets?

[StoopTroup]

I don't think Tulsans were so against River Development as much as they didn't trust any of the people involved with what was being offerred.

There was one plan on the table and it was a really awful idea IMHO.

The guy that penciled out the idea did have a real eye-catcher when it comes to ideas...however I think lots of folks felt it was going to end up being a kind of Boston Tunnel Fiasco.

The OKC rafting river in Bricktown hasn't even reached it's full potential yet IMO and to imagine the scale of the Tulsa proposal and the impact the construction would have had on the area before it was complete...simply boggled many of our minds.

It just seemed more like someones dream than a great idea.

I do hope someone can come up with a better idea someday though.

As far as fixing and widening Tulsa Streets....I think Homey is right about the widening and I think the Council is right about fixing existing streets.

They need to do both.

[Okla-homey]

I don't think Tulsans were so against River Development as much as they didn't trust any of the people involved with what was being offerred.

There was one plan on the table and it was a really awful idea IMHO.

The guy that penciled out the idea did have a real eye-catcher when it comes to ideas...however I think lots of folks felt it was going to end up being a kind of Boston Tunnel Fiasco.

The OKC rafting river in Bricktown hasn't even reached it's full potential yet IMO and to imagine the scale of the Tulsa proposal and the impact the construction would have had on the area before it was complete...simply boggled many of our minds.

It just seemed more like someones dream than a great idea.

I do hope someone can come up with a better idea someday though.

As far as fixing and widening Tulsa Streets....I think Homey is right about the widening and I think the Council is right about fixing existing streets.

They need to do both.

Please do us all a favor then. Monday, call your councilman's office and tell his peeps you want fixing and widening.

http://www.tulsacouncil.org/

[StoopTroup]

OK.

BTW...The street on our block was fixed a few years back...what a pain it was having to park down the street. We had an infant at the time and I thought they would nver get it done. Now that it's over though...our street is very nice. So nice that once your out onto the the main street...it's like a war zone.

[Curly Bill]

That city planners need to look out into the future and factor in the out-year potential, not just the quick "right now" paybacks.

...but city planners/politicians aren't interested in what's best long-term, they're interested in what will help me the most right now, what will help me get reelected.

[Okla-homey]

...but city planners/politicians aren't interested in what's best long-term, they're interested in what will help me the most right now, what will help me get reelected.

quite true. That's why we have a name for politicians who make politically unpopular or otherwise hard to swallow tough calls: "statesman"

[BigRedJed]

...Norman is still losing a home game every other year, and nobody seems particularly upset about it.

I realize that nobody's opinion but your's matters here so I just have one question for you. If they decide to play a couple of home games in Tulsa a season, will that cause you to not buy season tickets?
Please demonstrate to me ANY correlation between which team is the designated "home" team in the cotton bowl and the number of games played in Norman. Here's a good place to start: www.soonerstats.com (http://www.soonerstats.com)

If anything, that game takes the role of an away game for both teams, EVERY year, at least as far as the schedule is concerned. If OU/TX moved to home and home *shudder*, OU would likely just be giving up one of the OOC warm-up games for the seasons in which it was played in Norman. The whole OU/TX argument, as it relates to this issue, carries holds no water IMO.

As to whether or not I would buy season tickets, sure I would. I would also stand on somebody's desk at the Won't-be-called-Sonics sales office until they guaranteed that I would get seats for every game in the BOK Center that replicated as closely as possible my seats at the FC, for the same price or less than what I'm paying at the FC. Furthermore, I would bitch and moan to high heaven to anyone I know who might make a difference in Oklahoma City government that, in my opinion, the city leaders were being poor stewards of the hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars that I and my fellow citizens entrusted them with, simply by allowing it to happen.

Of course, they haven't been poor stewards. The lease that the Won't-be-called-Sonics signed with SMG and the City of Oklahoma City several months ago requires the team to play 41 regular season home games in the Ford Center, so this discussion is really just academic.

As for "nobody's opinion but yours matters here" comment, as much as I wish for it to be the case, alas, it is not. The opinions that matter here belong primarily to:

The City of Oklahoma City (and by extension its taxpayers), which has spent hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds to get to this point, with tens of millions directly related to securing a team
The owners of the Won't-be-called-Sonics, who spent around $400 million themselves to get to this point, with another $30 mil more possibly on the way
The sponsors, nearly all of whom are likely to be OKC based
And last, but certainly not least, the fans who hopefully will be sticking with them through thick or thin, heavily weighted to season ticket holders, who will make up well over 50% of the paid fan baseAnd Harry, I know you don't always care for my opinion, as you often make abundantly clear (though to my knowledge this has been a development only over the past several months), it sure would be great if you came after the opinion or issue rather than me personally. I always make a point to give you that respect; it'd be fantastic if you did the same.

[BigRedJed]

That city planners need to look out into the future and factor in the out-year potential, not just the quick "right now" paybacks...

...That's also why I was so disappointed in my fellow Tulsans who voted against Arkansas River development. I honestly believe investment in that sort of thing ultimately reaps big dividends for the entire community in terms of overall economic growth.

My hat is off to my fellow Okies in OKC who exhibited prudent judgment in making a sizable investment in their city's future amidst what I'm sure were nattering nabobs of negativity who urged against "wasting public dollars" while other "right now" needs were left underfunded.

In short, you gotta spend money to make money. OKC apparently "gets it."
I'm hoping Tulsa will get onboard that train too, as evidenced by some recent decisions...
You got that right. The first MAPS passed by a razor-thin margin. But ever since the completion of the ballpark (the first high-visibility MAPS project to be completed), OKC folks indeed started to "get it."

The great thing is, once we did, we started to pass things that often didn't pass before, like bond issues for streets and schools. We funded the $700 MAPS for Kids project, and are in the midst of renovating or replacing every school in the district. And the new projects keep rolling, with overwhelming support. Hopefully, the leadership won't squander its political capital and waste the public's goodwill on an unworthy money-pit of a project. So far, so good, although I have concerns about the recent "Tinker" vote.

I think once people from Tulsa walk into the BOK Center for the first time, and if this ballpark thing comes to fruition, Tulsa folks will do the same, and get in line with a unifying vision. There just needs to be a track record of success, and I think it will come.

[BigRedJed]

Blah, blah, blah... ...Furthermore, I would bitch and moan to high heaven to anyone I know who might make a difference in Oklahoma City government that, in my opinion, the city leaders were being poor stewards of the hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars that I and my fellow citizens entrusted them with, simply by allowing it to happen... ...blah, blah, blah...
And, just to clear up why I would think they were being poor stewards, it isn't specifically about me (selfishly, I admit) wanting to see all of the games, it's specifically about OKC capitalizing on its investment. Moving regular-season home games to other locales to some extent reduces the city's ROI, both in captured sales tax revenue and in national exposure for the city

To me those are key advantages to moving a team hear, and (again selfishly), I don't especially want my city to share that, after we as taxpayers spent half a billion dollars to get to this point.

[Harry Beanbag]

And Harry, I know you don't always care for my opinion, as you often make abundantly clear (though to my knowledge this has been a development only over the past several months), it sure would be great if you came after the opinion or issue rather than me personally. I always make a point to give you that respect; it'd be fantastic if you did the same.

Bull****.

[BigRedJed]

Really?

[Harry Beanbag]

Please demonstrate to me ANY correlation between which team is the designated "home" team in the cotton bowl and the number of games played in Norman. Here's a good place to start: www.soonerstats.com (http://www.soonerstats.com)

If anything, that game takes the role of an away game for both teams, EVERY year, at least as far as the schedule is concerned. If OU/TX moved to home and home *shudder*, OU would likely just be giving up one of the OOC warm-up games for the seasons in which it was played in Norman. The whole OU/TX argument, as it relates to this issue, carries holds no water IMO.



You can't be serious. OU and UT would both have another home game every other year. Why do you think Ohio State has 7 or 8 home games every year?

[BigRedJed]

Because the Big teneleven doesn't play a conference championship?

Look, when I did a cursory check on soonerstats earlier, I obviously mixed up some years, because when I posted that I hadn't gathered a perceptible pattern. That is, I thought that extra games were falling on both odd and even years.

After looking at it a little further, that's not correct. There is a pattern of more games in Norman on odd number number years than even, but not a precise pattern. That correlates to Texas being the home team at the CB, which it is on odd years.

But like I said, it's not precise. In the past 20 seasons an odd-numbered year had more games than the year before it 7 times, the same number as the year before twice, and actually had fewer than the year before it once. Even-numbered years had more games than the previous year once and the same number as the year before (beginning with '88) four times. The other years it had less than.

I'm too lazy to look up UT's schedule to see how many they dropped, but I'm willing to believe it follows a similar pattern.

Year Norman games
2007 7
2006 6
2005 6
2004 6
2003 7
2002 6
2001 7
2000 6
1999 5
1998 5
1997 6
1996 5
1995 6
1994 5
1993 5
1992 6
1991 7
1990 6
1989 6
1988 5

So yeah, it looks like there is a correlation, but it's definitely not a precise correlation. Scheduling and the athletic department's aggressiveness at scheduling obviously is a factor, too.

Even so, I don't think it's a fair comparison. Longstanding, rivalry game, "neutral" field, and season ticketholders from each school get a reasonable opportunity to buy tickets to that game, anyway.

[BigRedJed]

Bull****.
You still haven't answered my question of "Really?" Do you have some examples of me attacking you personally that you can link to? I sure won't deny that I'm human and have slipped up at times on this board, like anybody else, but you'll still have to look long and hard to find examples of me attacking someone.

And of the very few times I've really come after someone personally on this board, I sure don't remember you being one of them.

I think you're confusing debate with personal attack, both as it applies to your actions and to mine, which a lot of people tend to do on message boards.

[Dio]

The Kings had a few home games in Omaha every year when they were in KC. The players hated the extra travel, and the rest of the world thought it was bush league.

[Harry Beanbag]

Because the Big teneleven doesn't play a conference championship?

Why would that matter? Texas is a regular season conference game. Ohio State, OU, and Texas play the same number of regular season games.



Look, when I did a cursory check on soonerstats earlier, I obviously mixed up some years, because when I posted that I hadn't gathered a perceptible pattern. That is, I thought that extra games were falling on both odd and even years.

After looking at it a little further, that's not correct. There is a pattern of more games in Norman on odd number number years than even, but not a precise pattern. That correlates to Texas being the home team at the CB, which it is on odd years.

But like I said, it's not precise. In the past 20 seasons an odd-numbered year had more games than the year before it 7 times, the same number as the year before twice, and actually had fewer than the year before it once. Even-numbered years had more games than the previous year once and the same number as the year before (beginning with '88) four times. The other years it had less than.

You're making it way too complex. It's really simple. If OU-UT was a home/home series, it would be in Norman or Austin every year regardless of how many other home games were on the schedule.



I'm too lazy to look up UT's schedule to see how many they dropped, but I'm willing to believe it follows a similar pattern.

Me too.



Year Norman games
2007 7 7
2006 6 7
2005 6 7
2004 6 6
2003 7 8
2002 6 8
2001 7 6
2000 6 6
1999 5 7

Columbus games in red

So yeah, it looks like there is a correlation, but it's definitely not a precise correlation. Scheduling and the athletic department's aggressiveness at scheduling obviously is a factor, too.

[Harry Beanbag]

You still haven't answered my question of "Really?" Do you have some examples of me attacking you personally that you can link to? I sure won't deny that I'm human and have slipped up at times on this board, like anybody else, but you'll still have to look long and hard to find examples of me attacking someone.

And of the very few times I've really come after someone personally on this board, I sure don't remember you being one of them.

I think you're confusing debate with personal attack, both as it applies to your actions and to mine, which a lot of people tend to do on message boards.

It's just the internet. Don't worry about it.

[colleyvillesooner]

I don't think they should play games in Tulsa either, but the comparison of an OU game in Houston is kinda silly. (if only for the distance difference between the two scenarios.)

[BigRedJed]

No examples then. Gotcha.

[Harry Beanbag]

No examples then. Gotcha.


http://temp-e.net/files/incoming/hoffa/gotcha.jpg